Some religious liberals believe that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay
partnerships. 7 Some important verses which describe their relationship are:
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)

Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in
unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that
God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body
and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.

1 Samuel 18:2
"From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV)

David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely
close. It echoes the passage marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife:
and they shall be one flesh."

1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with
his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)

Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual
behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Tell you guys what - I'll accept you can get married in any state - so long as you sign a contract with the state to Not commit sodomy. They can
monitor your bedroom habits and if you are found to commit sodomy, they can arrest you and throw the book at you - now - do you want love or sick
sodomy? Your choice - but i suppose you wont be happy with that. oh well.

A: Sodomy is ANY sexual act that is not penile/vaginal intercourse (including oral sex)
B: You want the government in your bedroom?
C: I'll accept your views when you sign a contract with the state that you won't have oral sex. The government can monitor your bathroom/bedroom and
shower habits, take mouth swabs of you and your mate, and if you are found to have oral sex, to jail you go! Sound like a deal?

D: Who cares if YOU accept gay people or gay marriage? I know I don't.
E: What people do in their lives is NONE of your business.

Really? Can you say hyperbole? If state-sanctioned marriage was something being forced on people, then you might have a point. A weak one, at best,
however. No one is forcing couples to petition the state for a marriage license. It's something they FREELY choose to do (well, straight people are
free to choose it). Your Jim Crow analogy is so weak, it's meaningless.

The "right now" thing comes off as very socially conservative and even foolish considering both of you concede that even eventually the point will
be moot.

Our society is naturally moving away from conventional marriage. People's mindsets are changing. This is how societal change happens. If you want to
force it, contact your representatives. Don't preach at me and try to insult me with your Jim Crow references.

So why help society retard its own development? Is it a fear of the "unknown" or just a love for government involvement?

How am I helping society retard it's development?

And I am neither afraid of the unknown, nor do I have a love of government involvement.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Really? Can you say hyperbole? If state-sanctioned marriage was something being forced on people, then you might have a point. A weak one, at best,
however. No one is forcing couples to petition the state for a marriage license. It's something they FREELY choose to do (well, straight people are
free to choose it). Your Jim Crow analogy is so weak, it's meaningless.

It's only meaningless if you believe once same sex marriage is lumped into the governments domain that'll be the end of it. The no other lifestyles
or groups would seek out this status.

Otherwise it's very much like the constant fight of segregation. Little bits here and there with groups fighting both ends all the way for years and
years and years.

Our society is naturally moving away from conventional marriage. People's mindsets are changing. This is how societal change happens. If you want to
force it, contact your representatives. Don't preach at me and try to insult me with your Jim Crow references.

Removing government licensing and sanctioning of marriage doesnt do anything to change the mindset of the population. No one is being forced to change
their view on what marriage is or is not. It simply frees the term from artificial bondage.

How am I helping society retard it's development?

By focusing your energy on incremental shifts. Shifts in the wrong direction I might add. Shifts that will make it more difficult to arrive at the
liberation of marriage in the end. Dont you see how asking government to sanction more is working the cause of liberty for everyone backwards?

What would a person do to get government out of marriage?

Right now? Not ask the government for permission. Perform whatever ritual you see fit. Get a family lawyer and set up a trust or living will.

Hell, for the social rights people always bring up like visitation for instance just stick a ring on your finger and say youre the spouse. Nobody is
going to ask to see your marriage certificate.

The one place you might get called on it is on your tax return. Tax return. See how that keeps popping up?

Its only an issue at all because of government and revenue.

Supporting marriage equality this route just supports government and revenue. Not equality.

Think of Democrats stealing liberty for equality and Republicans stealing liberty for security. They're always stealing liberty under the guise of
something rosey and pretty.

Approaching marriage equality in this way is just stealing more liberty. At best the equality gained is fractional as many, many more people will
remain unequal and disenfranchised.

I have to conclude that those who take this route either dont really want equality, want more government, or are just too conservative to see the
obvious truth right in front of their faces.

I have to admit, I don't understand why public opinion on gay marriage matters... Would they do a poll and ask: "Do you think black people should be
permitted to share drinking fountains with white people"? And then change the laws accordingly? I mean, either we have equal treatment under the law,
or we don't. Does the public's opinion really matter?

A poll by the Star Tribune published Thursday found 46 percent of those surveyed support the law change that will allow marriage between same-sex
couples beginning on Aug. 1. Forty-four percent are opposed and 10 percent are undecided

I really don't understand why people think they have an interest in other people getting married. It's a question I've had that never gets
satisfactorily answered.

You might as well ask:
"Do you think Joe should be allowed to own a dog"?
"Do you think Bill and Mary should be permitted to have a child"?
"Do you think white people should have access to food stamps"?

These polls that ask the public if they think other people should have the same rights that we all have seem ridiculous to me.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.